I've been thinking more about this, and while I don't think that your proposal as given above will ever gain enough popularity to be instituted (and, as I've said, I don't think it would work properly as-is), mixing in new blood and seeing how that affects Uncyclopedia would not be a bad experiment.

So let me propose this: any admin who is willing to be part of the Great Administrator Mixup would "hand off" their ops to a democratically-elected user on a trial basis, say for a month. This has to be voluntary on the part of the admin, and I don't think participating admins should be de-opped, but should actively refrain from using any admin powers during the trail. For example: I volunteer to be part of the test, and Hyperbole is elected by current admins and users to be one of the temporary admins. I (or another 'crat) op Hyperbole, and for the next month Hyperbole essentially has my job, and I'm to act as nothing but a regular user.

This would give possible new admins a taste of what being an admin is like, and at the end of the trial the community could discuss the results. If it works - if we see tangible benefits - that would give weight to the potential of a more permanent rotating admin system.

I would be willing to be one of the demoted admins for the trial. If a couple more current admins join me, we could give it a spin. —rc(t) 16:59, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

But we could still nom you for NOTM, right? And what if Hyperbole puts on his thinking cap and permabans you, thus keeping your admin powers? Then nothing can be done to stop him, as he couldn't be banned, and he would keep banning you if you were brought back, and we would all miss you until you sockpuppeted your way in and started the counter-insurgence again Hyperbole's reign of terror. Aleister 17:32 22-2-'11

I think it's best if I don't personally participate in the Great Administrator Mixup. Would I like to have admin status? Sure. Of course. Do I want to get it by bitching about the state of Uncyclopedia until I get opped just so I can see how hard it is, like some weird futuristic episode of the Brady Bunch? Not really...

But I do think it's a cool idea, and it would be very cool if we got as many as four or five users rotated in on a temporary basis. pillow talk 17:39, February 22, 2011 (UTC) Oh, wait, it's democratic. Okay, then I just won't vote for myself. Never mind. pillow talk 02:10, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

You can always nom me for NotM. That's essentially why I exist at all. —rc(t) 01:07, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like it could be a reasonable solution. Also, bear in mind that bureaucrats can remove admin powers as well as give them, so in the unlikely event of insurrection, nothing can get too out of hand. The participating admins could also act in a mentor-style capacity with their designated apprentice, administering punishment beatings offering gentle advice and encouragement. And the punishment beatings. Oh so many punishment beatings. I'd be willing to participate in this. -- |c|o|d|e|i|n|e| 18:24, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Well, it'll be fun, and people enjoy visiting and contributing to websites that are fun. Also, it sounds like a cool community-building exercise which might make the userbase we already have somewhat less likely to wander off for months at a time. pillow talk 23:56, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a noob. Noobs have come in the last month or week or so. Noob means "newbie", a new user, it dosen't mean "internet idiot". I've been around here for seven months. --Lollipop-CONTRIBS-WRITINGS-SHOP-Now adopting! 00:39, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think the problems are inextricable from each other. If the base of established users atrophies too much, noobs won't stick around long; and if there are no noobs coming in and saying hi, established users will start getting discouraged by the failure of the site. Obviously, The Great Administrator Mixup doesn't solve all of our problems (it's not as though it actually recruits anyone to the wiki). But I think it helps. Like I said, it's fun. Fun stuff makes places more popular. Ask any bar. pillow talk 00:49, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

I probably phrased that question poorly. What I'm saying is, who is getting pissed off about the admins and needs this change to feel welcome? My point is, random user A probably is going to have no clue that this is happening, and, even if he or she finds out, to him it's a user he doesn't know, getting powers he doesn't really understand, from another user he doesn't really know. I just don't understand how this is going help the situation you're describing at all. - P.M., WotM, & GUN,Sir Led Balloon(Tick Tock)(Contribs)22:15, Feb 23

So we have three volunteer admins already. Let's wait a couple days to see if anyone else wants to join, then we could have a weeklong vote and have the new people take over admin duties for March. Sound good? —rc(t) 01:07, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds perfect. Also, for the admin volunteers, is it okay to edit some protected pages and stuff, since we're not actually having our powers completely removed, unless we actually are having our powers completely removed? Because I just completely lost track of all the pages that are protected. --T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:31, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think we shouldn't do anything a regular user can't do, and protected pages give a warning when you're editing them. But I see how you could overlook the warning from force of habit, so I'm sure nobody will complain if you do it by accident.

And sorry, Lollipop/Maniac McPee, but you'd have to be elected like everybody else. I am willing to offer you the chance to be the Official Candy of the Great Administrator Mixup, though. For a small fee. —rc(t) 01:53, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

If you really want to make sure you don't mess up, you could try making a secondary account/known sockpuppet and not use your regular account for a month (unless an emergency arises) Granted, that would cause issues with your watch lists, and make contacting you a bit harder, but you're not going to be focused on fighting vandalism either. --Mn-z 02:02, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Contents

Er guys? I hate to be the party pooper and all

But I'm going back to the last forum. I don't see the issue still that requires us to go for such a step. I'm not accepting Hyperbole's claim that the site's status is bad (see Mhaille's point, he put it in a much better way that I would have) nor do I see how bringing in new admins (especially in the above proposed manner) will resolve anything. If there's a feeling we need new blood, put in a new VFS vote appoint new admins and be done with it. I can also see a value with putting new admins on trial and check the community's feel about it (and maybe revive RYA for everyone and actually use is seriously). But otherwise, I don't think this will really change anything. I also want to point out that it didn't seem to me that there is an overwhelming support for the whole "THE ADMINS ARE EVIL ALMOST AS WIKIA AND CAUSE ALL THE PROBLEMS OF THE SITE". Funnily enough, the people who actually proposed most of the changes are admins, which sort of refutes the claim that we are a clique that clings to power and ban people out of spite. ~ 07:07, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

I encourage you to think about this differently, Mordillo. The people who proposed changes are mostly admins, but the people who voted for changes are mostly users. True, a good number of admins voted against. Still, I think there is a problem to the extent that users think there is a problem. It is perhaps possible that the perspective of an admin allows a person to see things from the other side. To a decent number of admins, the vote has said that there is no need. A significant portion of your users (almost half the regulars judging by the vote) disagree. This is the perfect opportunity for users to see for themselves that more admins aren't needed. Think of it as a way to show people the point you've been trying to make all along:) It'sMrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 07:43, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of thinking differently, it's me thinking that the basis for this whole discussion is incorrect and very much unfair to the admins (not to say, quite insulting). ~ 13:46, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick look in here to see if anyone left french fries on their plates. Yummmm. My own feeling about admins is that they are users who are very helpful, and have taken on extra duties to protect the site. I never saw them as an elite, just extra-hard (esp. Chief, who is extra hard, as most of us know from our sore buns) workers who go thankless much of the time. My only beef with admins is that they don't vote enough on VFH, VFD, etc., Froggy votes quite a bit but not many others. Do admins think they shouldn't vote on VFH (and I gather one of the complaints is that the site has lost voters), or that they'd end up voting as a block? I've been banned seriously once, and deserved it, and have only seen a few instances of unfair banning. So that's not much of a problem, to me anyway. And much of the other stuff they do is just housework, and we should pay them a minumum wage and give them one day off a week to visit their families. In my brainpan Lyrhtyria or however you spell the name, and Socky and Dexter and a couple of others are already admins-in-spirit (i.e. minimum wage, one day off, visit family, etc.). So I'm personally not seeing what the fuss is about, not saying it isn't fun though. Aleister 14:00 23-2-'11

Mordillo, hence this experiment. I see this as a way to see if there are indeed issues without making any rash and permanent decisions yet. I'm not trying to shame any admins into volunteering to give up their ops. This will just (potentially) let us see how Uncyc would fare with a different structure than we've always had. —rc(t) 14:25, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single person say, or even imply, that "The Admins are evil almost as Wikia and cause all the problems of the site." I certainly haven't said that anyone's doing a bad job or has done anything incompetent or unethical. I've said the exact opposite - that the admins are reasonable people who have worked hard to make Unc what it is. I'm not sure what you're "insulted" about - the suggestion that some users are unhappy (whether or not they'll voice that unhappiness) that there seems to be a big permanent stone wall around the Admin's Club? The belief that a little fresh talent could make the site more fun and more appealing? My observation that we got very little new talent in 2010, that activity is dropping off in most sectors, and that maybe we're overdue for a shakeup? I didn't mean any of it as a personal insult.

I don't think anyone thinks the admins are doing a bad job. I just think the current system - promotions-for-life whenever a sufficient number of admins get lazy and more work needs to be done - is ludicrous. And I think it's never a good idea to leave exactly the same people in charge of anything forever. Look, I support President Obama. But I don't want him in office in 2017. I don't think he'd take that as a personal insult or an unfair accusation about his dedication or his character. pillow talk 16:26, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

My point is you connecting the "dwindling of talent" and "decline of Uncyclopedia since 2010" to the admins or to the VFS system. First off, I don't know where you get this observation. Did we not get new good writers since 2010? Do I need to point out names? Is there a statistic that points out that we dwindle since 2010? I've been here almost as long as Mhaille and like him I've seen numerous WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE forums, we managed to survive all of them. Connecting that to the admins? Seriously. Most of the admins here tend to protect noobs from over zealous regulars as well as actively assisting with improving material. Spending hours at a time preparing a reskin to make an editor happy with his article becoming the front page, doesn't look to me as admins being the reason users are "driven away".

As for policies/initatives - I actually think that involvement of admins with policy is not as extensive as you point out. We are stopping some wild projects that quickly die out, introduce 20 new awards and titles or bound to bring drama into play. Did any admin stop an initiative that was supported widely by the community? I don't think so. So why am I insulted, without using brackets? First for using the generalization "admins" and brand us all under the same agenda and second for claiming that we are responsible for the perceived decline of talent. That basically says, to me, that of the hundreds of hours I'm putting into this place just because I love it, are for the sake of keeping some aristocratic clique alive or for some other nefarious reason. You might not have meant for it as I interpreted it, but it came out like that. Mind you, I'm not up to start a fight with anyone over this nor do I intend to push this issue further, but you might want to consider how much it frustrates me to get such a message. ~ 19:16, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Hyperbole, this is, indeed, a personal insult. You did not specify which office, so your comment suggests you don't want me in any office in 2017. At a minimum, sir, I expect to be occupying an office pertaining to the founding of my presidential library. Please be specific in your insults. Cordially, President Barack Obama 16:50 February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Why we should just do a VFS in March

I've been reading alot of very well written comments lately about admins and stuff. Some people are putting forth the point of view that not making new admins has "killed" Uncyclopedia. And I agree. For a new user, the belief (no matter how ill-advised) that they might one day be an Uncyclopedia admin will keep them going through all sorts of crap. I know it did for me. And look at me now. But the glass ceiling has become a brick ceiling. So I say fuck all this other shit, we should just do a straight-up good-old-fashioned VFS in March. Perhaps this should be accompanied with a ritual deopping of all extremely inactive admins (listed on the other Dump). -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 22:21, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe while that goes on and distracts people, a straight-up vote on different VFS formats/adjustments for the future could happen... separate from the arguing. If people think it's fine, vote for how it is, if they think whatever should change, vote for that (suggest it first if need be)... perhaps as many votes as one cares to for different things that could overlap like with that VFD thing...

Except I can't be arsed to figure it out and set it up, let alone get people to go along with it. In fact, I'd rather just complain arbitrarily and eat cupcakes. 1234~22:48, 23 February 2011

Zombiebaron is kind of right. Why are users admin when they are not even on. There are people like Aleister and Magic Man who deserve it and people like MrN9000 get all the glory (don't remove Chronarion though, never know when he'll come back, I recall he was around last October). --Lollipop-CONTRIBS-WRITINGS-SHOP-Now adopting! 00:11, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Don't want it, won't do it, if I was forced to do it I would permaban Lollipop just for the lutz, would blank all the Scientology articles, and would get naked and keep unbanning myself while I laughed and laughed and laughed. That aside, some of the admins who haven't logged on in years, well, I'd say put them on a shelf until they ask for their adminship back. Aleister 00:18 24-2-'11

MrN9000 has been active relatively recently, his edit count is over 30,000, and he's a relatively new admin. Its not like he hasn't edited since 2007 and has an edit count under 2000. That being said, if he isn't back by 2012, de-opping him might be appropriate. --Mn-z 01:24, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Where do you go to see someone's edit count? pillow talk 01:26, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

I have 1387 edits (both Maniac mcpee and Lollipop put together). Last time I checked, it was 1386,but now that this happened it's 1387. --Lollipop-CONTRIBS-WRITINGS-SHOP-Now adopting! 02:45, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Another Idea: Monthly Adminships

I think the idea of temporary adminship might be a good idea, so get some idea how a potential admin will act before being given life tenure. However, instead of instituting term limits on adminship, I propose we create a class of temporary admins who are elected for a month. I propose the following:

At the beginning of each month, the admins will decide if will have a vote to add a temporary admin or/and a permanent admin, and how many of each. To keep the dirty peasant folk happy, we will elect at least 1 temporary (or permanent) admin each month.

Temporary admins will hold the position for 1 month. They can not be elected temporary admins for consecutive months, but can be elected a permanent admin while holding a temporary admin position.

The current system (whatever it is) for de-oping permanent admins and crats will remain in place.

I think this will make everyone happy. It will create the illusion of accountability and possibility for advancement, making the regular users happy, while keeping all actual power in the current oligarchy, making the admins happy. --Mn-z 02:20, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

My idea of it is smilar:

The current admins vote for three new ones.

The next month the three new admins will put their top 3 of who should be next.

The volunteer roatating admins are not allowed to protect pages, ban any current admins (even if it's a joke ban) and edit the home page.

Every three months, any one of the nine admins that have served will be nominated to become a full time admin, whoever has done the most.

Thats too complicated. The point of my idea is to prevent the temporary adminship from altering the current system too much. --Mn-z 02:51, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

I have another idea. How about we stop coversing here, make some articles, and let this forum be archived and never do the idea. --Lollipop-CONTRIBS-WRITINGS-SHOP-Now adopting! 03:16, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

I have one more comment before letting this thread die

Okay, Mordillo, so you're insulted. Fair enough. I don't blame you one bit for feeling that way. If I were you, and had all the experiences that you did, I would feel the exact same way. You also are tired of these discussions and people insisting that admins are the problem. That's also understandable. What's a good solution for this? Step back and let this thing roll. Let's face the facts: While as a crat you have the power to say yea or nay to little experiments like this, to decide for VFS's and the like, one thing that is out of your control is the bitching. Sure you could ban all the people that annoy you, but that is only a band-aid solution. More people would just crop up and start bitching. Bitching about admins, banning, bitching about admins, new banning. On and on the problem will go. You want to stop the bitching for good? Let them have their way. Let them see what the job of admin is really like. Let the whiners experience what it is like to have to constantly put up with bitching all day, with being blamed for ruining the site. Let them know how you feel not through your words, but through experiencing what you do. Let them discover your point for themselves. The alternative is that you will probably continue to see forums like this, and each time you will be just as pissed as you are now.

I mean, aside from yourself, I didn't see a single user who was against the idea. I'm not saying you should go for the popular opinion, but if you think this is the last thread related to "blah blah we need new admins", you're just deluding yourself. This is your chance to actually do something about the whining, because when a similar forum pops up in a few months, man I really don't want to be the one to say "I told you so."
It'sMrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 04:18, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

It worked for Egypt! It'sMrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 05:31, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Here's your misconception Mrthejazz. I'm a `crat so I can "stop these things?" Bollocks, I have no intention to stop anything, as long as it got support from more than two people who have a bone to pick with admins. Nor did I stop widely agreed initiatives in the past nor did any other admin. The whole concept of the admins holding back the site is incorrect. You'll have the odd admin doing something that someone doesn't like, but as a collective, if we're treated as such, not only we don't stop most initiatives - we carry them through!. I'm not going to repeat my opinion again about new admin appointment should be based on technical necessity and how there is no need for new admins at the moment, I've said it enough in the past.

As for the only user? I saw actually more people objecting to the idea of changing VFS rules in the other thread than people voting for it, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm "the only one objecting". I think the proposal voiced there is not good and opens floodgates of drama. I can't see clearly what's the benefit of the temporary adminhood proposal which is why I don't support it. I don't think adminhood is the core business of Uncyclopedia, as it's being portrayed in these threads. I never said that the status quo needs to be maintained indefinably, I'm saying that I haven't seen anything that is better than the current system that can prevent issues which we've seen already in the past. ~ 15:04, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

For the record I agree with Mordillo... some day he will come, and he will take me away from all the hurt in the world... --ChiefjusticeWii 15:24, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, got to clarify, because I think there's a miscommunication. I'm referring specifically to this thread. Yes, there was a whole lot of dissension going on in the other VFS thread, but in this specific thread, regarding temporary admins, you're the only one, (well chief now too I think). I'm compartmentalizing those two b/c I think they're two totally different things. The VFS thing I don't even know what to think. I'm not trying to argue with you. In a sense, I'm agreeing with you. You say that you can't see what the benefit of the temporary adminhood proposal is. You know that small but vocal group of dissenters you just mentioned? The one's who have a bone to pick with the admins? I'm saying this proposal will shut them up, because they will experience adminhood for themselves. Once you've seen what it's like, that's enough. It's a lot easier to criticize someone when you don't experience what they experience. You say you've repeated yourself in the past about how adminhood should be based on technical necessity. But people apparently haven't listened because these threads keep coming back. Words rarely change opinions. Experience does. Let them learn for themselves why adminhood should be based on technical necessity, and these threads will go away. It'sMrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 03:53, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

Wait, do you mean to say that you have no intention to stop the Administrator mixup? Because if that's what you're saying, I guess I really misunderstood you. It'sMrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 04:55, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

Just a few questions

If the temp ops do a good enough job, will at least one or two of them be given permanent ops?

How is a change in adminship supposed to encourage new/more users? It doesn't seem like there is any reason for it to do so.

Are any of the changes suggested in the original thread (be they the proposals by emc or Rc) going to be implemented? Last I checked, the original goal of that thread was simply a change in the VFS process, not whatever this all has become.

I think this idea has stopped being "save the wiki from decline by reducing admin-user barriers" and has crossed over into solid "this sounds like kind of a fun idea" territory. I agree that it'll be fun and interesting, but not that it will save Uncyclopedia. Uncyclopedia has been doomed from the beginning by virtue of it being the worst. - P.M., WotM, & GUN,Sir Led Balloon(Tick Tock)(Contribs)22:41, Feb 28

It's an experiment. Some people say that mixing up the adminship could lead to better relations between ops and regular users. Some say that's absurd. Some say to-may-to, some say to-mah-to. You say you want a revolution; I say, who put all those things in your head? Hopefully after the Mixup we can answer #1 and #2 better.

When I suggested this, I wasn't trying to replace VFS. As far as I'm concerned, at the moment that conversation is unresolved. However, I think it makes sense to wait out the Mixup and see what happens before we decide the future of VFS. Just my opinion. —rc(t) 23:20, February 28, 2011 (UTC)